Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
1 (1992) 3-20
W. CREIGHTON MARLOWE
* * *
INTRODUCTION
Many agree that the recent discovery and decipherment of a lost Semi-
tic language at Ebla will not be the last such revelation coming from
the science of archaeology. Any evaluation of an Old Testament lexi-
con or translation must consider what quantity and quality of Hebraic
and Semitic comparative data were available when they were written.
The value of a Semitic language for Hebrew philology is judged in
light of its extent of textual information and the nature of its relation-
ship to Hebrew.
Choosing a Lexicon
A question frequently asked by seminary students is: "Which lex-
icon is the one to purchase?" This immediately demonstrates their
great misunderstanding of the lexica they use and the history of lexico-
graphic development. Moises Silva wrote:
IE. F. Miller, The Influence of Gesenius on Hebrew Lexicography (New York: Co-
lumbia University Press, 1927; reprinted, New York: AMS, 1966) 49-50.
2See F. Brown, S. R. Driver, and C. A. Briggs, eds., A Hebrew and English Lexicon
of the Old Testament (Oxford: Clarendon, 1907); L. H. Kohler and W. Baumgartner, eds.,
Lexicon in Veteris Testamenti Libros (2d ed.; Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1958); L. H. Kohler
et aI., Hebraischen und aramaischen Lexikon zum Alten Testament (3d ed.; 2 vols.; Lei-
den: E. J. Brill, 1967-); and W. L. Holladay, ed., A Concise Hebrew and Aramaic Lexi-
con of the Old Testament (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1971; reprinted, Grand Rapids: William B.
Eerdmans, n.d.).
3M. Silva, Biblical Words & Their Meaning: An Introduction to Lexical Semantics
(Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1983) 31-32, citing J. E. Gates, An Analysis of the Lexico-
graphic Resources Used by American Biblical Scholars Today (Missoula, Montana:
SBLDS, 1972) 134.
A SUMMARY EVALUATION 7
The serious exegete of the Old Testament cannot rely on just one
lexicon. A number of them have varying degrees of value for the stu-
dent of Hebrew today. The most valuable are those which have been
compiled within the context of modern Semitic philology; that is, the
ones which were able to utilize Akkadian or, better yet, Akkadian and
Ugaritic when the study of these languages reached a state of maturity.
Because of its early date, the lexicon by Brown, Driver, and Briggs is
sometimes inaccurate in its use of Akkadian. 4 Even at the present date
the Chicago Assyrian Dictionary5 (hereafter CAD) remains incom-
plete. Still, Brown-Driver-Briggs (or BDB by its popular acronym)
preserves an updated version of Gesenius' lexicography. Kohler and
Baumgartner's first lexicon, along with its supplement volume, offers
the lexical description of Hebrew vocabulary that is heir to the fifty
years of Semitic linguistic advances following BDB. Yet it cannot be
followed blindly or uncritically in every application of Akkadian or
U garitic. 6 Much has been learned in the quarter-century since they
were published. The recently completed Hebrew portion (four vols.) of
a new German Hebrew-Aramaic lexicon (edited initially by Kohler-
Baumgartner and continued by Kutscher-Hartmann, et al.; see n. 2,
p. 6) promises to be the most philologically complete and correct lexi-
con to date; but the rapid rate at which such data are presently being
made available will eventually make any current lexicon somewhat
outdated. This is especially true of the earlier volumes because of the
large number of years involved in writing a Hebrew lexicon. The first
4This is not to indicate they erroneously used the information but that the data at
hand was sometimes faulty by today's standards; that is, some of the Akkadian lexical
data they consulted is now outdated. An example is the suggestion of l,lllu as a cognate
(s.v.l,lfil) to support the meaning "dance," to which CAD gives no related definition.
5I. J. Gelt et aI., eds., The Assyrian Dictionary of the Oriental Institute of the Uni-
versity of Chicago (Chicago: Oriental Institute, 1956-).
6L. Kohler, Lexicon in Veteris Testamenti Libros s.v. "zrb"; CAD s.v. "~arapu";
Holladay, A Concise Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon s.v. "zrb"; and L. Kohler et aI., He-
braisches und aramaisches Lexikon s.v. "zrb." Even though this lexicon was published
fifty years later than BDB, it is now over twenty years since its first edition; so its weak-
nesses must be seen in the same light as that of BDB. An example is its explanation of
zrb, a hapax in Job 6:17, as meaning "to press" in light of the Akkadian cognate zurubu.
More recently, however, the CAD has established the proper cognate as ~arapu, "to
burn" (1961); and a decade later, Holladay's concise abridgement of the lexica based on
the editorship of Kohler and Baumgartner gave the meaning "dry up." However, the
third edition of the Kohler-Baumgartner lexicon (later edited by E. Y. Kutscher and
B. Hartmann et aI.) arrived at the translation "scorch, burn" based on the Hebrew cog-
nate ~rb. Unlike the second edition, the Syriac and Akkadian zrb "to press" was ques-
tioned but shown to be a solution offered by some. Most modern English versions-the
NEB a notable exception-have adopted an idea related to "a time of heat or burning";
cf. NIV, RSV, NASB, JB.
8 GRACE THEOLOGICAL JOURNAL
two volumes of this latest Old Testament lexicon begun by Kohler and
Baumgartner appeared in print during a nineteen-year period (1967-
86); while volumes three and four were published, respectively, in
1983 and 1990. William Holladay's abridged Hebrew lexicon (pub-
lished in 1971) was able to make use of manuscript material for this
third edition of Kohler-Baumgartner through the letter samek; but such
a concise work in English cannot substitute fully for the parent Ger-
man production. Where Holladay could not rely on published or
unpublished portions of that lexical project (letters cayin through taw),
the same advantages obviously were not inherited and thus not incor-
porated. A comprehensive, up-to-date Hebrew lexicon in English is
still lacking among the existing and fully-published Old Testament
Hebrew lexica. The student must ask: "What lexica should be owned?"
No one lexicon is sufficient, or probably ever can be, for Hebrew exe-
gesis. The careful student must, and the wise student will, consult a
variety of the most complete and current lexica available. 7 Presently,
the American student or scholar should at least consult the lexica by
Gesenius-Tregelles; Brown, Driver, and Briggs; Holladay; and Kohler-
Baumgartner.
As with the lexica the value of any translation of the Hebrew Old
Testament is partly determined by the quality of the linguistic tools-
in this case mainly the lexica themselves-used by the translators.
Since accurate translation is dependent on sound exegesis, which in
turn is dependent on the best lexica, what was generally noted about
the linguistic and lexicographic climate of the periods of Hebrew lexi-
cography applies to the potential of any versions produced within the
same periods. The following will focus on a few representative OT
translations of each period and suggest why extreme views regarding
the priority of anyone translation be abandoned.
9See G. M. Lamsa, The Holy Bible: From Ancient Eastern Manuscripts (16th ed.;
Philadelphia: A. J. Holman, 1957) v-viii.
A SUMMARY EVALUATION 11
ION. Frye, The Great Code (San Diego: Harcourt, Brace, Jovanovich, 1982) xiii.
12 GRACE THEOLOGICAL JOURNAL
to follow the Textus Receptus, 11 but those who so choose must seek the
best translation of that New Testament and the Masoretic text. In 1611
the A V was it, but not now.
Choosing a Translation
The use of data from Semitic philology affects the accuracy feature
of good translation; however, the best translation- must have beauty and
clarity as well. Thus one should use a translation that has taken into
account the most recent linguistic findings-not necessarily the most
recent proposals, uncritically-and is readable, yet written in the best
style its language offers for the age in which the translation is done. The
reader is most interested in what the Bible says so he can interpret what
it means; consequently, the lexical aspect is primary to the value of a
translation. The best translations, however, are not those which have been
IlNeither does the author accept the Textus Receptus as the most authentic repre-
sentation of the original Greek New Testament text, but the issue concerns the choosing
of the best English translation no matter which tradition of textual transmission is fol-
lowed. Siding with the TR does not necessitate staying with the A V/KJV as the final
word in translating the TR. Also this debate has no bearing on the OT text, where the
Masoretic text is accepted by most translators as the primary textual witness to the origi-
nal Hebrew Scriptures. Witnesses to other textual traditions (the Septuagint, Samaritan
Pentateuch, and the Qumran documents-which latter recension reflects the two others
named and the MT) are consulted for variant readings by all who employ the science of
textual criticism; but those who believe the AV possesses a special sacred quality as an
English version look to no other OT text than the MT as being fundamentally the "TR"
of the Hebrew Bible. Thus they must deal with the same basic issue in relation to the OT
as noted above with the NT, but without clouding the discussion by accusing their oppo-
nents of using the wrong Hebrew or OT text. Those who postulate the primacy of the AV
of 1611 based on a preference for the TR must still explain the supposed supreme accu-
racy of that translation for the OT in light of an abundantly increasing accurate knowl-
edge of Hebrew grammar and lexicography since that time, coming from the many
comparatively recent developments and advances in Semitic linguistics and comparative
and cognate studies.
A SUMMARY EVALUATION 13
in full here, nor can each language be described and critiqued in detail.
The reader is referred to the relevant literature,12 of which some of the
more important titles are named in the note just indicated.
Hebrew is a Semitic language. This trite statement implies that many as-
pects of Hebrew can be properly evaluated only against the background of
the ensemble of Semitics. The principal Semitic languages include Akka-
dian ... in Mesopotamia, Ugaritic, Amorite, Phoenician ... Hebrew-
Moabite , and Aramaic in the ... [Syrian and Palestinian] area, Arabic and
South-Arabian in central and south-west Arabia. and Ethiopic in the horn
of Africa. The closeness and relationship of the classical Semitic lan-
guages to each other and their essential unity (this would not be true of the
developed forms of many modern Semitic tongues) had been recognized
by Muslim and Jewish grammarians as early as the tenth century. 13
the other Semitic languages. Dahood and his followers have abused
U garitic in this manner.
Cultural backgrounds and a number of lexical and grammatical
problems in the Hebrew Bible, however, are indebted solely to the dis-
coveries at Ugarit for their illumination. Hebrew is not to be equated
with Ugaritic or any other Semitic tongue, but neither was the Old Tes-
tament written in a literary vacuum. The ancient Semitic languages and
dialects together offer the possibility of filling the gaps left in the
present understanding of Hebrew.
14A question mark (?) in the chart means that it is not clear how that version (either
A V or NIV) so marked handled the translation of the Hebrew term in question.
-The triradicals Qkr, st C , and skh were new roots proposed and substantiated by their
contexts and cognate data for inclusion in OT Hebrew vocabulary. The meaning pre-
served by Ugaritic for the latter term has been accepted by recent lexica, but its form re-
~ains entered as skh. The terms dy, crb, and br were proposed homographs of otherwise
well-known terms. At least one modem lexicon has added another root, crb, for "clouds."
Recent lexica have recognized a new homographic term: br, "field," in Biblical Hebrew.
As yet dy has not been included in the lexica published and available to this writer (see
chart on p. 14) as a newly discovered Hebrew homograph; but its meaning supported by
an Arabic cognate has influenced some English translators. The remaining roots were
never debated as to the need for emendation. Their radicals are clear; but their usage has
been difficult to determine, since each is either a hapax (all but two of them) or a word
16 GRACE THEOLOGICAL JOURNAL
CONCLUSION
appearing very infrequently in the QT. These are instances where new meanings were es-
tablished for familiar roots when the appropriate Semitic comparative lexical data be-
came available. Most modern English versions recently published and the most recent
Hebrew lexica have accepted the translations of these terms substantiated and preserved
by Arabic, Akkadian, and/or Ethiopic. Readers unaware should note that among Semitic
phonemes, Hebrew s and Arabic s, Hebrew z and Akkadian ~, and Hebrew sand U garitic
t are interchangeable consonants.
A SUMMARY EVALUATION 17
APPENDIX
TIME-LINE OF HIGHLIGHTS IN LEXICOGRAPHIC AND
LINGUISTIC HISTO Ry 15